Franchising Brandon Mebane
by BrianL on Feb 16, 2011 8:17 AM PST
Email
Print
A common suggestion this offseason for the Seahawks front office is to retain the services of Brandon Mebane via the franchise tag. On the surface this makes a great deal of sense. Mebane is a 26-year-old, disruptive defensive tackle that was a standout on a 2011 line that had talent issues. That's the kind of young, skilled player teams want to keep around.
Things get a little murkier once you take a look at current tag numbers.
Assuming there's a CBA in place and current tag rules are upheld, the Seahawks could be facing a very expensive decision should they choose to go that route. Courtesy of Jason La Canfora of the NFL Network, here's a look at the expected franchise-tag salaries for this offseason based on position:
Quarterbacks: $16 million ($16.4 million in 2010)
Running backs: $9.5 million ($8.15 million in 2010)
Wide receivers: $11.3 million ($9.5 million in 2010)
Tight ends: $7.3 million ($5.9 million in 2010)
Offensive linemen: $10.1 million ($10.7 million in 2010)
Defensive ends: $12.9 million ($12.4 million in 2010)
Defensive tackles: $12.5 million ($7 million in 2010)
Linebackers: $10 million ($9.7 million in 2010)
Cornerbacks: $14 million ($9.6 million in 2010)
Safeties: $8.8 million ($6.5 million in 2010)
*Kickers: $3.1 million ($2.8 million in 2010)
Thanks to Dan Snyder and the Washington Redskins, the Seahawks could expect to pay $12.5 million if they were to franchise Mebane. While we don't know what a new CBA would mean to salary caps yet, we can acknowledge that would be a pretty sizable chunk of payroll.
*$3.1 million to slap the tag on a kicker? Ouch.
Let's go ahead and poll this one.
105 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
So much depends on the new CBA
The players want a provision in place that 4 years accrued service will allow them to hit unrestricted free agency. If that doesn’t happen, we’d be able to assign him a 1st and 3rd round grade as a RFA and pay him about half of the 12 million La Confora alludes to. However, I think we need to franchise Brandon now while we have the option, because Lombardi has gone on record to say that multiple teams have told him Mebane would be highly sought after were he to hit the open market. It’s a lot of money, but this roster is talent-starved and can’t afford to add 3-tech to an already large list of team needs, especially in a year that FA looks so murky
The RFA?
If we could really tender a 1st and 3rd for Mebane, I think that really sounds like our best option. Listen, the kid is good, REALLY good, but irreplaceable good with first round talent, or even second or third round talent? That I don’t know.
I do agree that we have a talent starved team and to me, adding two fhigh round picks for one player isa great option. Especially since I believe we do not have a third this year due to CW?
I voted no one.
Since it seems like we have too many missing pieces. I’d rather give the money to somebody in a longer term deal, even if its Mebane.
But I don’t know the strategies for contracts in the NFL as well as I do MLB (and I don’t even know this very well), so my thinking might be entirely flawed.
If you're thinking Mebane's the guy you want to give a long-term contract to
you may want to go ahead and franchise him. Doing that doesn’t preclude you from signing a multi-year deal and it keeps him under your control for a while longer. The trick is offering him a contract that he would accept over the guaranteed $12.4 million single-year franchise tag.
That happened with Walter Jones
He knew that if he didn’t sign a multi-year deal, he’d get franchised the next year and make 1.2x his previous salary. Hence, he got the franchise tag three years in a row.
by Jackrabbit5683 on Feb 16, 2011 9:02 AM PST up reply actions
And he got to skip all that offseason stuff.
by Kenneth Arthur on Feb 16, 2011 12:39 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah but he didn't need it
He pushed cars around in Alabama
by Jackrabbit5683 on Feb 16, 2011 3:47 PM PST up reply actions
not just cars.....
ESCALADES…. 5500+ lbs of steel rubber and plastic
by Seahawks4life on Feb 16, 2011 9:51 PM PST up reply actions
Excellent point
They were probably in park, too!
by Jackrabbit5683 on Feb 17, 2011 2:35 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
HE ATE ESCALADES FOR BREAKFAST!
Then he curled M1A1’s, one in each palm.
by jacobstevens on Feb 17, 2011 11:22 AM PST up reply actions
I say franchise him...
He’s a really good player and we don’t need to be taking away from our D-line at this point, who we gonna replace him with?
"I was 11 or 12 and Quinton was like 30. He was the only dude on the Pop Warner team who had a full mustache and a beard. And he used to drive to Pop Warner games. You're not supposed to be doing that. It was crazy." -Marshawn Lynch
Exactly why I voted for tagging 'Bane
A lot of teams are tagging players as a sign of good faith and to lock in the player for negotiating a long term contract with the team. However, the 30% rule prevents many players from being able to get the long term contracts they deserve from their current teams until a new CBA is reached. If the Seahawks think ‘Bane is worth more than a 30% bump from his last year’s salary, they can’t sign him to an extension IIRC. So, tag him, work out the CBA, and then extend him.
by SeahawksFanInNY on Feb 16, 2011 11:28 AM PST up reply actions
wait, maybe that applies only to last year's playoff teams and not this year's?
Maybe I’m off and the Hawks can just give him a good contract now, in which case that’s probably the best option.
by SeahawksFanInNY on Feb 16, 2011 11:31 AM PST up reply actions
That's the bitch of the situation
We don’t know how comparatively large that franchise number will be without knowing what the cap numbers will be in whatever CBA is agreed upon
12.4 Million?!?!
Stupid Albert Haynesworth.
by Jackrabbit5683 on Feb 16, 2011 9:02 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
No
Stupid Danny the Diminutive Owner.
by EvilSammy on Feb 16, 2011 10:47 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Seen the anti-Snyder pieces going up on deadspin lately?!?
if not, worth a look if you want to further invest time in viewing his douchebaggery.
Thank god for Paul Allen, baby! Money with a shred of class and decency.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 16, 2011 11:41 AM PST up reply actions
Mebane's Good
He’s not $12.4M good. I don’t think there’s anyone on this team who’s worth what we’d have to pay for a franchise tag. That includes Matt Hasselbeck at $16M.
That’s a sad commentary on the state of the Seahawks’ talent level.
Franchise Mebane.
Buy some more time to get a longer term deal hammered out.
They will not franchise anybody.
The team has spent the last two years unloading high priced talent. We now have one of if not the lowest player payroll in the league. The front office will not re-sign Matt or anybody to a contract until after the CBA is signed. If we lose a few guys to FA so be it. Going forward we will have plenty of ‘cap space’ and that is the plan. This escalation of salaries due to franchise tags is exactly what the league is trying to eliminatel. Mebane is good but he isn’t worth more than $4m per year.
Correct in the sense that the Franchise Tag does NOT have to be used at all if a team so chooses.
Poll flawed.
Hasseldone.
I accidentally his "franchise someone else" while misreading it.
I’m for nobody or Mebane while you try to iron out something longer term….
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 16, 2011 11:45 AM PST up reply actions
He isn't worth more than 4mil a year?!?
What do you want to do, field a team of college players and become the Clippers of the NFL?
You have to pay for talent, and Mebane is worth more than 4 mil a year. That’s low end starter money for a multiyear vet. A guy who is an upper tier/near probowl level talent like Mebane is worth probably double that. You offer 4 mil a year, you’ll never get him back, and he’ll be so pissed off at you, he’ll sign in division to kick your ass as well.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 16, 2011 11:44 AM PST up reply actions
I can't believe how many folks don't feel he should be tagged.
Mebane is a force on the D-Line and fits well in Seattle, gives 100% every down and is a great character guy…but lets let him slip through the cracks so he can go to the Rams or something??? Naw lets build a real solid team and show loyalty to guys like this that play to and beyond there potential, motivating the rest of our talent and possible future FA’s to want to come here as well.
"I was 11 or 12 and Quinton was like 30. He was the only dude on the Pop Warner team who had a full mustache and a beard. And he used to drive to Pop Warner games. You're not supposed to be doing that. It was crazy." -Marshawn Lynch
I'm shocked at how many do want to tag him.
$12.5m would put him in the top 25 of the entire league regardless of position, in terms of salary.
Or about double Matt Hasselbeck. Or about $5m more than the prohibitively expensive TJ Houshmandzadeh.
by jacobstevens on Feb 16, 2011 1:17 PM PST up reply actions
I want to tag him
But not necessarily because I think he’s worth the $12.5m. I think it’s worth that money for one year in order to give us a chance to lock him up to more years/less $ per. With the giant question mark surrounding free agency this year, I just don’t see that there is going to be as big of an advantage to having a bunch of cap space to spend.
The tag tacitly demonstrates the team considers the player close enough to top 5 at their position
to apply it. Players have then turned around and signed for lesser deals, but not that much lesser. Agents have frequently utilized the leverage that’s ceded there.
It’s weird how we all value things. There are some football fans that think you’re downright stupid if you don’t accept a “BPA” approach to the draft, and it’s reaching if you take a guy a dozen spots before you ought to have.
Yet so many here feel comfortable paying Mebane such a large salary even though he’s earned a salary that would probably balloon to about $6-7m at the end of the contract.
On the free agent market I bet he gets about $24m, 5 years. We all think building through free agency is flawed because it’s so expensive, right? And you don’t get the player’s best years, you get a piece of their peak and all the decline. Why criticize overspending in free agency if you think a good player who’s played well but accomplished little is worth dramatically more than about $4-6m a year?
by jacobstevens on Feb 16, 2011 1:30 PM PST up reply actions
Mebane missed about a month of games last year and he could be hurt again.
He’s not yet reached his potential but he still could end up having this as his ceiling. A very good, low-impact player.
Sucks to lose such a good likable player. A 5th round compenstatory 2012 pick is not great consolation, but the team will not be in much different shape if we lose Mebane in free agency. Try to keep him but have some restraint.
by jacobstevens on Feb 16, 2011 1:33 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm not necessarily criticizing overspending in free agency
I just have no idea what free agency is going to look like this year, so it seems like a good year to overspend on a 1yr deal (Tag) for a young player that plays a vital role on our defense. Roll the dice on being able to sign Mebane to a good contract. If he sets a price that we don’t like, let him walk next year. I think it’s worth the risk this year because there not be enough time available to tackle free agency with a solid plan, it may be a whirlwind free-for-all of bad decisions.
Sorry. I don't mean to project that view of free agency on you. Just making a general point.
by jacobstevens on Feb 16, 2011 2:12 PM PST up reply actions
It's an interesting point
Draft a guy and get him through his learning years and into his peak years to have him leave via free agency, or sign a guy in his peak and get him through the decline. The former would come with a cheaper contract, but costs picks and comes with the risk that the players peak is either lower than projected or not reached at all. The latter comes with knowing the peak, but a more expensive contract and the risk of quick decline. (I hope after that rambling that was the general point you were referring to.)
The franchise tag is a tool that would allow the team more time to sign a long term deal.
No one wants to sign Mebane to $12.5 for 5 years, that’s not even part of the discussion. The question is whether it’s worth the risk of having to pay Mebane 12.5 for one year if you’re not able to work out a long term deal thats close to the $24m, 5 year deal you mentioned.
Mebane isn't even our best DL
Colin Cole is our best DL. Mebane is third. Red Bryant made only $391K, Cole got $5M. The average NFL salary is $2M. On the Seahawks it is about $1.2M. When you overpay guys you cannot go after other guys that may do a better job and come cheap. If you tie up too much in Cole and Mebane it may be necessary to let Red Bryant go. You cannot tie up 25% of your team payroll in three defensive linemen who are not All Pro’s.
25% is about $22m of 2009's payroll; I don't see that figure relevant.
I don’t disagree with you. But, also, there’s probably something close to an 80/20 rule with team salaries; a large chunk of it really does get tied up in a small handful of players.
But I don’t disagree with you. Except that Cole is the best lineman.
by jacobstevens on Feb 16, 2011 2:04 PM PST up reply actions
If you pay Mebane $12.5M
You are going to need to pay Red and Cole more also. So add at least $5M for Red and you are up to 25% of the teams payroll very quickly. Matt only makes $6M. Once you hand out that kind of money to one guy everyone else looks underpaid.
We won the division and a playoff game with a roster that was paid well below the NFL average. There is no correlation between team payroll and NFL success. Many of the highest payroll teams did not make the playoffs. New England has been letting guys go when then become expensive for years.
I'm following you now.
You’re presuming that paying Mebane so much would foster some catalyst to need to pay Red more, like a hold-out or something. A fair point.
I dunno if you noticed with anything else I said on this thread and another one, but to me it’s a crystal clear case that we should not franchise Mebane.
by jacobstevens on Feb 16, 2011 2:43 PM PST up reply actions
"Matt only makes $6M"
Matt only made $6M.
He’ll get at least 8M next year if we resign him, maybe more. Sad, I know, but quite true. Look at salaries across the league at the position.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 16, 2011 4:50 PM PST up reply actions
I'm just going to say that it's foolish to compare DTs and DEs because the positions have completely different responsibilities
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
Plenty of 'cap space'
If you are willing to let good players like Mebane go to conserve cap space, and “we have one of the lowest player payrolls in the league,” what do you propose we do with all that cap space? Build through free agency? We haven’t had much luck with that in the past. Also, there may be very limited (if any) time to sign free agents this year. I say we use some of that cap space to franchise Mebane and buy ourselves a year to see if a mutually beneficial deal can be made.
They will continue the trend from last year.
We will sign guys but not the high dollar free agents. Clemmons and Brock are good examples. They were paid well but not at the franchise tag level. The team is signing guys to future contracts at $400K. They get a chance to compete. If they are successful then like Williams and Obamanu who were re-signed for $2M they will be rewarded with a new contract.
Clemons wasn't signed, he was traded for.
It was kind of a big deal around these parts.
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
Can't he be extended prior to March 4th?
If so, do it now! If not possible, franchise him just to buy some time to extend him. we absolutely cannot afford to lose him with everything else we need to do
He could be given a new deal prior to March 4 but won't.
If they aren’t going to offer Matt they will not do it for Mebane. If the team felt that was possible to reach an agreement by March 4 there would be no need for a franchise tag. Due to the uncertainty of the CBA the Hawks have chosen to allow most of their players (27) to become free agents. This wasn’t decided yesterday. It is the highest FA total of any team in the league. They structured contracts several years ago to have them run out in 2011. They do not want the legacy contracts like Curry’s to restrict their moves going forward. The cap space will allow them to bring in alot of guys for a try out.
Winning teams will be competing with us for his services
and willing to pay more than “modest” money.
Go Pack?
If we were knocking on the door of contention maybe that would matter,
if someone else is in a better position to sign him to money we can’t afford then that sucks but you don’t go exacerbating your own problem to spite someone else.
There will be plenty of others available.
You let a guy you love go because he wants too much money. Then you pick up somebody else like Leon Washington that wants to reestablish his career and is willing to work cheap. This years bargain on the D Line will be Albert Haynesworth. Nobody is going to want Haynesworth and he has made his money. Washington will probably pay half his salary if we take him off their hands and throw in a draft pick just to get rid of him.
Nobody is going to want the most disruptive and dominant 43 defensive tackle in the league?
I get that he’s also perhaps the most disruptive DT off the field but there will be a market for him.
Hasseldone.
by Misfit74 on Feb 16, 2011 4:40 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
He's the best player on the defense.
And I’d only put him behind Okung overall. No way you let him walk and sign elsewhere. Put the tag on him and attempt to lock him up long term.
I would say franchise him.
You guy’s really can’t lose an interior lineman like that and you would be crippling your team overall, also many teams will try to pry him away from you if you don’t.
Franchise him and then resign him to a large longterm deal.
Through the DT talent pool this year is pretty deep, and Corey Liuget could be a viable replacement taken around your 1st round pick.
I wouldn’t see tagging him as wasting money but as protecting your best player defensive player from 31 other teams.
My views as a Panthers man.
RELEASE THE KRAKEN! (Greg Hardy)
"I'm going to kill you" - Greg Hardy
by RjTheMetalhead on Feb 16, 2011 10:02 AM PST reply actions
If anything, I would lean towards locking up Leon Washington
On the other hand, both are RFAs under the old CBA, so it might be possible to put, say, a first- or second-round tender on both. The salary for a franchise tag on Washington might be a bit much for what he’s done so far, but I would like to sign him to a two or three-year deal. Or trade him; his stock has never been higher and we got him from the Jets for a handful of magic beans. I don’t want him to leave without getting something in return. I just hate the idea of us serving as the field testers for other teams.
Leon Washington is not going to get the average salary of the top 5 running backs in the league.
by Kenneth Arthur on Feb 16, 2011 12:41 PM PST up reply actions
I should have been more clear
I certainly don’t want to have the tag stick all the way until we actually have to pay him that much. But a lot of other teams would be very interested in a relatively cheap and physically talented RB that thinks he’s been underutilized on his current team. And if we let him walk without a fight, than our best trade of last year is pretty much worthless. Depending on how the new CBA plays out, I would want a 1st or 2nd round tender put on him, just as a negotiation starting point.
Does the DT number take Seymour into consideration?
Heard he just signed a 2 year/30 mil deal. Which would likely bloat the DT number even higher.
There are two routes for determining the price for a franchise player.
It’s either 1.2x his previous salary or the average of the 5 highest-paid players at his position for the upcoming year, whichever is higher. It’s not based on the players’ average over the length of their contract. Depending on how much Seymour is set to get paid next year would decide whether or not his deal factors into the franchise price. I don’t know where to go to find player salaries so I couldn’t tell you if his deal will factor in or not.
by Jackrabbit5683 on Feb 16, 2011 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
We know this, if he's being paid 15 million/year. He'll be the highest paid DT not named Haynesworth. Which would factor.
The question is, if contracts signed for the same free-agency period change what the franchise number will be… If they do, and Seymour just signed his extension today, then the top 5 average would change. He was in it last year at ~12 million.
by SgtSasquatch on Feb 16, 2011 12:57 PM PST up reply actions
'He' as in Seymour. He was in the top 5 DT's last year making 12 million or so.
He’ll be in it again with a raise and (I’m assuming at 2/30) 15 million this year.
by SgtSasquatch on Feb 16, 2011 12:58 PM PST up reply actions
I would say sign him right now, to whatever he wants.
Since the team is rebuilding, payroll is at the lowest it’s going to be for a while. As they acquire better players, it will go up.
Sign Mebane now, to whatever he wants. He’s in his prime, and one of the best if not the best player on the team.
Not literally.
What I mean is, if we get cheap, we’re going to lose him.
I’d rather pony up the money this year than fork over 12.5 million and risk losing him the year after… after the team is actually closer to a playoff run.
The franchise tag isn't a guarantee that the player will make that much money.
They’re frequently used to keep a player around long enough to sign a longer, cheaper on a per year basis, deal. Even if they’re unable to get that deal done, if the worst move they make this offseason is to pay Mebane 12.5m for a year I’d say they had a pretty good offseason.
Well if you franchise him and then try to lowball him or at least, not pay him as much as the franchise tag, then he's not going to sign a longer deal, right?
I think the team needs to take a chance. Even if they don’t franchise him, they’ve got money to spend and compete for him on the market. Or the 12 million saved could go to another (maybe even a better) player. We’ve got holes all over the defense and offense, I’d rather play conservative here and see what happens after the CBA is signed.
If its a lost season or a half a season, there won’t be that much risk involved in losing Mebane.
by Kenneth Arthur on Feb 16, 2011 12:45 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Wouldn't it be the other way around?
If it’s a lost season, or half season and we tag him, then we either don’t pay him, or (presumably) pay him only a prorated portion. So, there wouldn’t be much risk in KEEPING Mebane with the Tag.
If you tag him, lose a season, and then he's still a free agent after next season, then you've taken a risk for nothing.
If you tag him, play a half season and pay him 6 million dollars, you’re paying him 6 million dollars while taking a bigger risk that he won’t be as valuable. I’d rather pay him 12 million and get a full season out of him, than 6 million for half a season.
by Kenneth Arthur on Feb 16, 2011 2:10 PM PST up reply actions
I guess that depends on the determination of the Tag if there's a lost season
If someone is Tagged, and there is no season, what is their status the next season. Obviously they’d be a free agent, but would they be a free agent coming off their 2010 contract, or off their franchise tag?
That salary is guaranteed unless you agree to a long-term deal.
And I believe there’s a big gap from April til late July where you can’t negotiate.
by jacobstevens on Feb 16, 2011 1:23 PM PST up reply actions
I say franchise him.
Finding a disruptive DT is hard enough without gambling for one in the draft. Franchise Mebane, then draft a DE, because there is a lot of depth at DE in the draft this year, to learn behind Raheem Brock (who’s not getting any younger) and Chris Clemons.
Doing this, we could have a top flight DLine really quickly.
I am a visionary, I am a genius, and now I am angry! Now help me find my pants!
I have a plan, and it's so cunning you can brush your teeth with it!
Someone may have posted this already bu what about the transition tag?
This is not a hutchinson deal or anything. If we got draft picks for him at least we get something. I have no idea what the salary would be defined as with the transition tag.
by Jazzercise! on Feb 16, 2011 1:22 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
The only reason I would not resign Mebane is the possibility that by doing so it costs us to opportunity to sign an upper tier free agent.
I guess thats the argument when people say they don’t want to give him 12.4 million. But after all it is Paul Allen’s money and secondly we’ve currently got a great cap space situation, so why not spend that money on a young franchise cornerstone. I don’t the salary cap argument is relevant with this Seahawks team.
I don’t think franchising Mebane means that you won’t be able to fill other holes through free agency or that by being overpaid he’ll become the next Albert Haynesworth. People are acting like franchising Mebane and signing more top free agents are mutually exclusive. They’re not, it just means Paul Allen’s wallet will be a little lighter.
We don’t need more holes, I really hope he’s a Seahawk next year. I can’t imagine how frustrating it would be to see him play out his prime with another team.
Paul Allen is 20 times richer than the next richest owner.
That’s the dude I want to work for! You got a first class facility on lake Washington to work at , a custom 767 to fly around in, the coolest coach in the NFL , the best fans. I mean if they offer these guys fair market value why the hell should they franchise anybody ? If a player (OR AGENT) is going to try to hold them hostage after all Mr. Allen has done to pamper his players then let ’em go play for Andy Reid.
by Richard fg7 on Feb 16, 2011 1:22 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Not to mention-- in a state without a state income tax.
Which always cracked me up about Josh Brown. I saw somewhere someone did a relative evaluation, and the difference between our contract and StL was minimal at best.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Feb 16, 2011 1:27 PM PST up reply actions
Transition tag nonsense
Does anybody know if the league ever fixed the "poison pill " mess so the transition tag would be an actual option ? I know Tagliabue talked about it but …well , he was good comish.
Actually, if they can't work out a contract,
The Transition Tag might not be a bad idea in this case.
No – the poison pill hasn’t been fixed, but I don’t believe the Transition Tag has ever been used again, and if it has, the poison pill wasn’t utilized.
This.
I don’t know if it’s a league-wide ‘understanding’ or not, but that is what seems to be implied in recent articles about the Transition Tag. Screw Minnesota if they Trans-Tag Sidney Rice! Poision Pill comin’ atcha!
Hasseldone.
Wouldn't it be kind of like one of those sayings that I know is in Texas and is probably also in Tennessee
about how if you fool me I caint git fooled agin?!!?
Can you imagine? “Yoink! Thanks for replacing our Williams wall, suckas!”
Hey, we presumed there was an understanding!
by jacobstevens on Feb 17, 2011 11:26 AM PST up reply actions
I'm betting there's an "understanding",
However, I notice there haven’t been many (if any) TTags since Hutch. It wouldn’t surprise me if a team decided to PPill the first available TTagged player just to spotlight the problem for the CBA.
Nope
I want mebane back as bad as anyone – but given the current state of the team, and what needs to be done to keep progressing – 12 mil is too steep of a price to pay for a decent but not all world DT.
Beer, its not just for breakfast anymore.
I think one thing to consider is tagging Mebane while working on a new deal for him.
Then the tag can later be pulled, though I’m not sure if it can then go to another player if a deal is done in a timely manner. That is obviously further clouded by labor issues.
Hasseldone.
No, once it's been used, it can't be used again that season.
"Retarded isn't a race." -Thingray
by Matt Erickson on Feb 19, 2011 11:57 AM PST up reply actions
Much as it kills me to admit it
but I kind of like the idea of a Transition Tag in this case. It means paying Mebane in the Top 5 salaries for DTs from the ’09 season which, according to the chart above, is ~ $7 million, while a Franchise Tag, based on 2010 salaries, would be around $12 million. A very substantial difference. The only drawback (as we well know) is that other teams can still negotiate with him.
Picks
We would get picks if someone signed him right?
only a third at best
and that would be at the very bottom of the round
by hawksfan1401 on Feb 16, 2011 5:43 PM PST up reply actions
Signing someone on a Transition Tag
is SUPPOSED to give up two first-round picks, which is supposed to be nearly unheard of for someone not named Brady or Manning. Obviously, when we tried it with Hutchinson, we got less ‘draft picks’, and more ‘anal rape’.
Thats the franchise tag.
There is no compensation for the transition tag if the team chooses not to match.
Franchise Tag
I thought that locks a player and no team could even talk to that player.
If it's an exclusive tag thats true.
Last I heard all but two of the franchise tags this year were non-exclusive.
Teams can tag players with an exclusive or non-exclusive franchise tags
Non-exclusive tagged players can negotiate with other teams.
by Greetings from the Lord Humongous! on Feb 18, 2011 11:40 AM PST up reply actions
My mistake
I was thinking of the non-exclusive Franchise Tag. I double-checked and you’re right. All the Transition Tag does is give the tagging team the right to match another team’s offer.
I am fine using Paul Allen's money to franchise 'bane
he is one of the precious few young players on the hawks who is truly very good. He needs to stay imo, whatever it takes
I'm kind of glad I don't work in the front office of a team I love, becuase this is the part where I would just write a blank check for ME! BANE!
Is that the light at the end of the tunnel, or the headlights of an oncoming train?
no way.
If some team can snag Mebane in fa then that means there is a fa period and we could get a lot more for our 12 mil. I mean think about it would you sign him to a 100 mil 10 year contract. I hope not. Mebane is good but not a big enough game changer to warrant superstar money. They will try to keep him around but he isn’t worth that kind of money and no team will pay that much. I’m guessing he will get 8 mil a year and will be worth it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
- Adrian Peterson blows teammates away in footraces; appears to be on the mend
- UPDATE: Charlie Sheen didn’t buy Lawrence Taylor’s Super Bowl ring
- Alex Smith gets blown up by Jon Beason over Cam Newton comments
